Art is form of communication, it's meant to be seen, to provoke, to say something, and to be criticised. Even small and simple games, which this game isn't, are worthy of analysis and research. That's what we do with art so further pieces can be made.
This game jumps through hoops trying to eat the cake while leaving it whole - Its author want people to interact with this, clearly thoughtful piece, while deflecting its audience feedback completely. Why?

Is it not art? is it not provoking?

It's a reflexive piece and its not humble - the artist is put on a pedestal while his work is being ravaged by others and the artist remains distant and misunderstood. They never even wanted their work to be published (expect they did) and you shouldn't criticise it because its personal (it's not) and you don't know the artist (it doesn't matter)

Death of the author is 60 years old at this point, going out againt it is archeic.
Publishing your work is a very scary process and I applaude anyone who dares to do so, even The Beginner's Guide. It's not a bad game I just hate its message and the heavy handed way it's delivered.

A reflexive card game that chooses to rely on poorly acted meta gimmicks rather than a refined game experience.

The game is fun despite peaking early.
It also gets significantly easier in a way that doesn't feel intended but rather incomplete.

There's too much going on and there's no satisfying ending.
The conspiracy part goes nowhere and the actual meat of the game suffers for it.

This game is no masterpiece but card game fans will get a lot of joy from most of it.